This paper is a reflection on education within the framework of the Anthropocene, accepting as key educational challenges the problems which justify assigning this name to the current geological epoch. The urgent need to train citizens, who are actively committed to the principles and values of sustainability, derives from these problems. The focal point of this issue has two main aspects: the first focuses on transformative action as a nurturing dynamic of the training process; the second considers the competencies that education should aim to promote. On the one hand the paper reviews the updated typology of competencies which, described as ‘transformative’, are included in the Learning Compass 2030 (OECD, 2019). This adds complexity to the training proposal of the DeSeCo model (OECD, 2005). On the other hand, there is an analysis of the significant aspects of the typology of key competencies for sustainability, as promoted by UNESCO (2014; 2018a). From a reflective consideration of both typologies, the lack of elements (capacities) necessary to reach a critical awareness of species — whose training significantly affects what each individual can become — is evident. The so-called ‘existential competencies’ of Edgar Morin (2016), which point to the most radical core of the human being, are then proposed as complementary to strengthen the consistency of the model. These competencies are not explicitly included in the, otherwise laudable, initiatives which international organisations and institutions are deploying to bring the
Este artículo reflexiona sobre la educación en el marco del Antropoceno, asumiendo como retos educativos de primer orden las problemáticas que justifican asignar tal denominación al actual periodo geológico. De ellas se deriva la urgencia de formar ciudadanos activamente comprometidos con los principios y valores de la sostenibilidad. El foco de atención se sitúa en dos principales aspectos: la acción transformadora como dinámica nutricia del proceso formativo y las competencias cuya adquisición la educación debe procurar. En el texto se revisa, por una parte, la tipología actualizada de competencias que, con el calificativo de ‘transformadoras’, recoge el Learning Compass 2030 (OCDE, 2019), con nuevos elementos que complejizan la propuesta formativa del modelo DeSeCo (OCDE, 2005). Por otra, se analizan los aspectos significativos de la tipología de competencias clave para la sostenibilidad que promueve Unesco (2014; 2018a). A partir de la consideración reflexiva de ambas tipologías, se advierte en ellas la carencia de elementos (capacidades) necesarios para alcanzar una conciencia crítica de especie y cuya formación afecta significativamente a lo que cada persona puede llegar a ser. Para robustecer la consistencia del modelo, se proponen como complementarias las denominadas por Edgar Morin (2016) ‘competencias existenciales’, que apuntan al núcleo más radical de la persona humana. Estas últimas no son competencias explícitamente recogidas en las por otra parte loables iniciativas que organismos e instituciones internacionales están desplegando para llevar a buen puerto la agenda Educación 2030. Son, sin embargo, de imprescindible atención en el marco de una educación de calidad, verdaderamente transformadora. Por tanto, es preciso incorporarlas al modelo competencial dominante en el escenario internacional para afrontar radicalmente la gravedad y urgencia de las actuales problemáticas socioecológicas. Se requiere el sustrato antropológico que proporciona un humanismo biocéntrico, comprometido con la responsabilidad moral que obliga a preservar la dignidad de la vida en su extraordinaria diversidad.
Murga-Menoyo, M.ª Á. (2021). Education in the Anthropocene. Possibilism versus utopia. Teoría de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria, 33(2), 107-128.
The title of this paper highlights the coordinates which inspire its content. On the one hand, there is the magnitude of the changes, caused by humans, on the biosphere. This is the immense problem which threatens the survival of our species. On the other hand, there exists hope in the present, with a radical and deeply anthropological spiritual sense, far removed on so many occasions from simple optimism. In this hope we find the condition of possibility so that ‘the horizon of justice and good transforms the educational experience into a hermeneutical practice of meaning’, as claimed by Pagès Santacana (2020, p. 106).
This is the approach which gives rise to the question relating to education which is addressed in the following pages. For this purpose, the numerous pronouncements of the United Nations and UNESCO, as well as extensive literature, is taken as a reference. The evaluations of the
The paper is structured in seven sections. The first section is introductory and deals more fully with the aforementioned coordinates. Next, the type of education, required by international organisations and institutions, is described. In each section, two main features are addressed: firstly, the self-proclaimed ‘transformative character’ of this kind of education and, secondly, its focus on competencies training. After a descriptive analysis of the approach UNESCO is spreading — which is an integrative synthesis of the stance of international organisations and recognised bibliography — the paper’s fifth section justifies the need to recover the cluster of competencies proposed by Edgar Morin. These are existential competencies. This is in order to fill the gaps in the competency model which dominates the international educational panorama. By way of conclusion, some aphorisms are offered with the aim of reaching a clarifying synthesis of the above. Finally, a brief epilogue outlines critical stances relating to the educational model described.
At the beginning of the century, the Nobel Prize winner Paul Curtzen coined the term ‘Anthropocene’ in order to designate what, in his opinion, was a new epoch in the evolution of planet Earth. This is a geological period, emerging from Modernity, which is characterised by the growing magnitude, unprecedented today, of the power of Humanity. As a geomorphological force, our species has shown itself capable of significantly modifying living conditions and, therefore, life as we know it today. And it continues to do so (Curtzen & Stoermer, 2000; Rockström
Since then, the use of this term has spread and has been increasingly supported by scientific evidence, which shows the cause-effect relationship existing between the collective action of the
In addition, human beings currently have at their disposal, the technology and the power — with its good and bad points — necessary to significantly influence their future as a species. This is defended by Carbonell (2018), paleoanthropologist and winner of the Prince of Asturias Award for Scientific and Technical Research, when he holds that we are confronting natural selection (with vaccines, medicine, etc.) and, for the first time, have enough knowledge to influence the future of our species. Even Harari (2016) goes further when he points out that, thanks to artificial intelligence and biotechnology, we have acquired the power to change the evolutionary trajectory of the human species itself. We are, therefore, faced with an unprecedented responsibility which would require a renewed form of humanism; a
Pieller (2020) supports this idea, underlining the correlation between the growing concern about climate change and the collective awareness of the ‘need to invent another way of inhabiting the world and having a «good living»’ (p. 1). He joins those who have repeatedly pointed to the need for an ideological re-foundation based on the capacities of the species to internalise a renewed hierarchy of values, with interdependence as the radical biological principle which lays the foundation of life. He holds that this requires an ontology based on diversity, cooperation, homeostasis and symbiosis, one which intertwines all living beings and their ecosystems in a single fabric, a support system which enables human life.
Interdependence, thus understood, leads us to forge alliances with other creatures and organisms in a symbolic commitment to mutually consolidate the possibilities of the future. It is at the core of the radical ‘relational autonomy’ which is constitutive of the individual, an individual both autonomous and vulnerable, and inserted in a social and also physical context.
This awareness is a prerequisite for the socialisation of what Carbonell (2018) calls ‘critical awareness of the species’. It encourages us to lead the way with responsible evolution and conscious progress, undertaken in a humane manner. Without it, our species is at serious risk of suffering unusual and violent episodes, even more serious than the Covid-19 pandemic, which could lead to a chain of collapses. From a critical awareness of the species it would be possible to reach the cosmic consciousness characteristic of a systemic, complex and transcendent view of reality.
Undoubtedly, all this requires an ethos which is different from the one that has prevailed in Modernity. Is change possible? Edgar Morin (2011), without abandoning a critical stance, offers a positive answer based on what he calls
According to this thesis, crises offer an opportunity to return to radical questions and find coherent answers which enable the transition to a possible new level of civilisation. In this epoch, an epoch which is ‘at the same time Anthropocene, from the point of view of the history of the Earth, and planetary, from the point of view of the history of human societies’ (Morin, 2016, p. 10), education is in the foreground. How can we understand it from this perspective? What, in a situation like the one in which we are living today, is its range and functions?
An introductory statement is essential, as indicated in the final declaration of the first meeting of the
As we come to terms with the anthropocene as a geological era of human-caused change to the planet, and as we grapple with a more-than-human world, the key question before us is: what do we want to become? This is a question to be asked and answered through education (UNESCO, 2020, p. 1).
A unanimous answer may not be possible although the
This is an educational model which is shaped by the concept of sustainable development and the approach to education which involves competencies, concepts and approaches which are deeply questioned from critical positions. Education is debated, as it has been throughout history, between possibilism and utopia. However, today, the notion of Anthropocene facilitates this debate by offering a favourable framework for synergies between different lines of reflection and work (Cózar Escalante, 2019).
There is a solid amount of literature offering a detailed analysis of the keys to the education model which has been created in response to the socio-ecological problems included in the
The difficulty is not so much found in the available abundant and rigorous knowledge, as in the inertias, interests and mistrust which prevent change, not forgetting the controversies that it arouses. Conversely, this is something common to deep social transformations, including the transition towards lifestyles which are compatible with sustainability.
This paper does not aim to enter into the debate on the contradictions and weaknesses that the model presents, an issue which is fully explored in a documented work by professors Caride and Meira (2018). We do not spend time on the description of the model (Murga-Menoyo y Novo, 2017). Rather, our aim is to focus on the international approach, which is dominant in these first decades of the Anthropocene, assuming the perspective of the International Commission on the
improving the quality of human life without compromising future generations and our supporting eco-systems. In this vision, the purpose of education should be seen fundamentally in moral and ethical terms and as
This statement is compatible with the commitment given by the World Education Forum, held in Incheon (UNESCO, 2016). It is comprehensively included in SDG No. 4; a necessary facilitator of the United Nations
After a third of the period which was established for the fulfilment of the
Specifically, in Europe, in the case of SDG4 — quality education — the situation is in some aspects close to the planned goals, although there exist significant differences between countries. This is one of the three SDGs which have achieved the best results, although only seven of its member states are included in the world ‘top twenty’ (European Commission, 2019, p. 78).
The results of the evaluation help to clarify what type of society we, in Europe, are moving towards. However, they fail to explore the underlying issues of the educational model. Except for some minimal axial axes that appear, repeatedly, in UNESCO pronouncements, the human being’s ideal which guides education continues to be open to different interpretations and nuance. The specific indicator itself — intended to assess the degree of compliance with target 4.7 of SDG 4, which most directly refers to the educational model — has, perhaps, a calculated ambiguity, as seen from the following statement:
4.7.1 Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development, including gender equality and human rights, are mainstreamed at all levels in (a) national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education; and (d) student assessment (UN, 2017a, p. 8).
The text explicitly refers to ‘global citizenship education’ and ‘education for sustainable development’. These are two types of adjectival education which are so interrelated that it is very difficult to draw distinctions. UNESCO itself, when defining what each of them means, attributes to the first the function of:
nurture respect for all, building a sense of belonging to a common humanity and helping learners become responsible and active global citizens. (…) to assume active roles to face and resolve global challenges and to become proactive contributors to a more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive and secure world (UNESCO, 2018a, p. 37).
While, in the adjoining paragraph assigns, to the second, the function of
empower learners to take informed decisions and responsible actions for environmental integrity, economic viability and a just society, for present and future generations, while respecting cultural diversity.
Where is the difference? Although the door to different nuances seems to be open, it makes no practical sense to spend time on clarifications of this kind. In both cases, education has the function of shaping a citizenship capable of achieving the SDGs, a citizenship forged in the interrelation of society, individual, nature (Murga-Menoyo, 2020). An analysis of what specific goals, stated as competencies, are in the spotlight of the training effort could provide evidence to form a judgment on the educational model. This will be undertaken in the next section.
The
In the pedagogical and educational context, this Copernican change occurred amid confusion about its meaning and implementation. It demanded that teachers have both conceptual and methodological tools, and even a language that was previously alien to them. The OECD DeSeCo project, which was formulated between 1997 and 2003, has served as a benchmark, and has received outstanding international support in addition to being widely disseminated.
Due to the fact that it was conceived in order to direct education towards the needs of economic development, it did not fail to recognise the balance between ‘economic growth with environmental sustainability, and prosperity with social equity’ (OECD, 2005, p. 4) as a great collective challenge for societies. It explicitly endorsed ‘the importance of democratic values and achieving sustainable development’ (Ibíd., p. 7).
However, although the competencies that it highlighted are condition of possibility for the social change required by the latter, they are clearly insufficient when it comes to fully achieving this change. The explicit mention of the concept of sustainability is not included in the conceptualisation of the different competencies which are proposed as necessary. This is how UNESCO appears to understand it when advocating the formation of specific competencies for sustainability. Some competencies which are absent in the DeSeCo typology, include joint decision-making and a sense of responsibility for current and future generations (UNESCO, 2014, p. 11; 2017, p. 10; 2018b, 44-45; 120-121).
Recently, the OECD updated its initial proposal for competencies training. The
Transformative competencies, together with the anticipation-action-reflection cycle as a facilitating element of training, represent an interesting reinforcement of the specific competencies for sustainability promoted by UNESCO. Another reinforcement is the explicit introduction, among attitudes and values, of those ‘core shared values of citizenship in order to build more inclusive, fair, and sustainable economies and societies’ (Ibíd., p. 17). Although the focus remains on the economic dimension of development, the rhetorical relevance of social aspects appears to be growing.
Specifically, the role of creating a new value which encourages the reconciliation of tensions and dilemmas, and assumes responsibilities in order to ‘shape a world where well-being and sustainability — for themselves, for others and for the planet — are achievable’ (Ibíd., p. 16) is attributed to transformative competencies. Likewise, continuous improvement of thought and action is promoted by drawing attention to the formative importance of the anticipation-action-reflection cycle. As is well-known, anticipating the effects, and consequences, of the present on the future strengthens the ability to make committed decisions and act more effectively with respect to individual, social and environmental well-being.
It can, therefore, be stated that this new OECD competency model is moving towards greater convergence with the key competencies for sustainability, as explored in the literature on the subject (Glasser & Hirsh, 2016; AsomBent & Hoffmann, 2013; Rieckman, 2012; Wiek, Withycombe & Redman, 2011). UNESCO, by collecting the different approaches, proposes, in synthesis, the following nine competencies: critical thinking, anticipatory thinking, strategic competency, normative competency, complex thinking, collaborative competency, competency for integrated problem solving, self-awareness, responsibility with respect to current and future generations. In the latter, which refers not only to intra-generational responsibility, but also extended (intergenerational and interspecific), we find one of the basic pillars of the axiological framework which is solidly anchored in universal human rights. This gives identity to the approach to sustainability (Murga-Menoyo, 2018).
With all this, a dense typology is generated, a forest of competencies which, in practice, runs the risk of being of little use to teachers on whose shoulders the quality of education, to a large extent, rests. The emphasis given to one or another competency in classroom practice will mark the potential of the applied model to respond to the type of education that our societies require. What does seem to emerge from these different stances is the relevance that is explicitly given to the transforming function as a hallmark of the type of education which we believe is necessary.
In the current rhetoric relating to typical education promoted by international organisations and institutions, the concept of transformation, devoid of the connotations that could associate it with the radical notion of emancipation, refers to the adaptive changes which are necessary for the sustainability of development. This is while seeking to reconcile human rights with sustained economic growth. In the line of axiological calculated ambiguity typical of these organisations and institutions, they appear to seek the transition towards a reform of lifestyles. Perhaps this could be a slower transition, but possible, within the framework of formal democracies. Furthermore, it is without negating the possibility of empowering the population.
Both UNESCO and the OECD declare transformative objective as a hallmark of the type of education that both endorse. They associate it with the dynamics which are necessary for the quality of training processes. Education is seen as a process which makes transformative learning possible. Its objective is for students to deepen their understanding of the world and question and change their vision. This should not involve disruptive thinking, which is typical of transgressive learning (UNESCO, 2017, p. 54). This stance does not seem incompatible with the concept of empowerment as long as it is understood, according to the distinction of Ayuste González and Trilla Bernet (2020, p. 29), ‘as an individual process of development of one’s own inner strength and personal abilities in order to survive difficult situations and find a certain well-being’.
In the case of UNESCO, we find an example of this in the renewed framework of action for the period 2020-2030 (UNESCO, 2019) — which gives continuity to the Global Action Programme (GAP) for Education for Sustainable Development (2015- 2019) — proposed at the United Nations General Assembly (UN, 2019). The aim of this new roadmap is to correct the deficiencies and weaknesses detected in the assessment of its predecessor (UNESCO, 2018c).
This proposal includes a triple dimension of education: a) as a transforming action of people at the individual level; b) as a strategy which facilitates the essential structural change in societies, a precondition for their sustainability and c) as an instrument with a double function: firstly, to facilitate the training required for the transition to ecological technologies and, secondly, to critically analyse the effects, and problems, derived from these technologies which, on occasion, as is recognised, only provide apparent solutions (UNESCO, 2019, p. 2).
The approved text coincides, in part, with the rhetoric of ‘transformative competencies’ as proposed by the
with the acquisition of knowledge, learners become aware of certain realities; with critical analysis, they begin to understand the complexities of the realities; experimental exposure can lead to awareness of realities; when relevant to one’s life and through difficult moments (UN, 2019, point 62, p. 17).
The transformation, thus understood, directly points to a change in both attitudes and values; to an interior, personal transition, based on the cluster of values spread by the
This is a systemic challenge that involves education. However, it also embraces politics, economy and culture. It is a challenge which, ultimately, questions each and every one of us personally. It is also a challenge which, according to María Novo (2016, p. 234), requires us to ‘abandon the obsession with growth and consumption and support healthy lifestyles. This gives rise to a challenging question: how much is enough?’. This change, which is characterised by multiple implications of great complexity, cannot be undertaken without an emancipatory form of education in its deepest sense. This must be an education which is, of course, not just focused on promoting behaviours and ways of thinking. But, as a precondition, it must focus on strengthening the individual’s axiological core and their critical thinking in the face of data and ideas related to sustainability in addition to the contradictions inherent in sustainable lifestyles. What’s more, it must undoubtedly and ultimately focus on acting accordingly.
The widespread dissemination of an educational model with such high levels of demand does not seem easy. However, in the Report to the United Nations on the implementation of education in the framework of the
to pay more attention to the deep structural causes of unsustainable development, in particular the relationship between economic growth and sustainable development. Education for sustainable development should promote development as a balancing act, which implies adapting to changes while respecting the values of conservation, sufficiency, moderation and solidarity. (…) Above all, it should ensure human dignity and the right to live decently (UN, 2019, point 63, p. 17).
However, perhaps there are too many ambiguities and too many doors which are open to different interpretation. The intensity of the great systemic transformation that is coming — especially in view of the acceleration of climate change and its effects — and the urgency of the change that is required to face it, make a more precise educational model necessary. This is a model with a commitment to the principles and, above all, the values of sustainability. Greater focus on training for the ‘understanding of humanity’, in the broadest and deepest sense of the concept, as proposed by Morin (2001), could strengthen the effectiveness of pedagogical action for quality education.
For the purposes of pedagogical action, the typology-synthesis that UNESCO has promoted, following several previous proposals, specifies the educational approach in the formation of the competencies as illustrated in Table 1.
Source: UNESCO, 2018b, pp. 44-45
the ability to recognize and understand relationships, to analyse complex systems, to perceive the ways in which systems are embedded within different domains and different scales, and to deal with uncertainty
the ability to understand and evaluate multiple futures — possible, probable and desirable — and to create one’s own visions for the future, to apply the precautionary principle, to assess the consequences of actions, and to deal with risks and changes
the ability to understand and reflect on the norms and values that underlie one’s actions and to negotiate sustainability values, principles, goals and targets, in a context of conflicts of interests and trade-offs, uncertain knowledge and contradictions
the ability to collectively develop and implement innovative actions that further sustainability at the local level and further afield
the ability to learn from others; understand and respect the needs, perspectives and actions of others (empathy); understand, relate to and be sensitive to others (empathic leadership), deal with conflicts in a group; and facilitate collaborative and participatory problem-solving
the ability to question norms, practices and opinions; reflect on own one’s values, perceptions and actions; and take a position in the sustainability discourse
the ability to reflect on one’s own role in the local community and (global) society, continually evaluate and further motivate one’s actions, and deal with one’s feelings and desires
the overarching ability to apply different problem-solving frameworks to complex sustainability problems and develop viable, inclusive and equitable solution that promote sustainable development —integrating the above-mentioned competencies
These eight competencies, which are mostly clusters of competencies, cover a wide range of capacities, values, attitudes, and abilities. Acquiring these competencies within education facilitates a response to our current social demands and needs. They are, therefore, necessary and valuable. But their statements avoid, or fail to address, important principles — among them, the ‘responsibility for present and future generations’, previously claimed by UNESCO itself (2014, p. 12). These are essential elements which are necessary in order to shape the competencies within the framework of sustainability, with critical conscience of species. These aspects are missed and should be integrated in order to strengthen the robustness of the educational model for sustainability; a model which, in short, is called on to give special importance to
There is, for this, a previously travelled path. Its aim is to chime with the Rousseauian approach which advocates an education with a mission to ‘teach to live’. In recent decades, Edgar Morin has taken up the idea and, after re-signifying it in his extensive work, concludes that ‘knowing how to live, a problem that we all have, is the core of the problem and the crisis in education’ (Morin, 2016, p. 62). Furthermore, since he only considers it possible to ‘teach how to learn to live’, Morin proposes the formation of
These are types of radical competencies which include multiple elements, and their training presents a massive challenge. It is necessary to give learners access to the acquisition of those cognitive-affective tools which assist them in their fight against error, illusion and partiality — the great basic problems of knowledge — while promoting understanding (intellectual and human) and allowing them to face uncertainty. All these elements form the basis of critical and systems thinking but, in addition, they are necessary to implement the remaining key competencies for sustainability, as listed in Table 1. Their importance requires an explicit mention in order to prevent them from being neglected.
It would be advisable, therefore, to promote their training, adding a compound competence, the ‘existential competence’, to those promoted by international organisations. Having the capabilities that make it up is necessary o respond to situations that, in these uncertain times, arise in the lives of each individual on three interrelated levels: the individual level; in the community/society space (as a citizen); and as a member of the
Among the elements of existential competency, the capacity to ‘understand humanity’ is, as affirmed by Morin, the most complex. This is because, on the one hand, it has the remaining elements as a condition of possibility and, on the other hand, implies that mere intellectual understanding is not only insufficient but false. It is necessary to capture the motivations, contextualise the phenomena and consider the complexity using ethical, anthropological and epistemological frameworks. Knowledge, values and attitudes are involved. Furthermore, ‘it is always inter-subjective; it requires openness to the other, empathy and sympathy (…). It recognises the other as similar but, at the same time, as a different entity from oneself: similar due to a shared humanity, different because of personal and/or cultural singularity’ (Ibid., p. 65).
Perhaps, in the training of this competency the most difficult and profound transformation that education has pending is spiritual transformation and the strengthening of consciousness. Both are necessary to face our current challenges and move us towards a new civilisational stage. This is not an exclusive weakness of the current individual, although the circumstances we experience as a species add gravity to the lack. In a planetary society whose survival requires overcoming the true threat of climate change and its effects — which put democratic systems at serious risk —, understanding humanity is a condition of possibility aimed not only at deepening democracy but also aimed at maintaining it.
It is well-known that uniting wills in order to orient them towards a common goal, which is a function of master stories throughout history, has allowed for the survival of the species and the construction of societies, thus marking the great vectors of social development. Today the mechanism does not seem radically different, although technologies are exponentially accelerating the immediacy and power of their impact. This accentuates the urgency to strengthen existential competencies. In a society prone to banality, master stories are replaced by
From this perspective, the training of the multifaceted existential competency — which has, at its core, the capacity to understand (intellectually and humanly) — stands out as a function that is extremely necessary for all transformative education. According to Morin (2001, p. 42):
the cognitive problem has an anthropological, political, social and historical importance. If there could be a basic progress in the 21st Century, it should be that men and women stop being toys unaware not only of their ideas, but also of their own lies. It is a capital duty of education to arm everyone for the vital combat in favour of lucidity.
Only lucidity — at the antipodes of error, illusion and partiality — tinged with a ‘comprehensive gaze’ can counterbalance the untruth which has, today, become plausible and whose dissemination is now reaching proportions which are hardly compatible with democracy. Faced with this urgency, which is no less serious than that of the socio-environmental challenge, it seems necessary to complete the list of key competencies for sustainability proposed by UNESCO with this new cluster of capacities, the training of which is directly oriented to the most radical nucleus of the individual.
Faced with the Covid-19 pandemic, new evidence adds to that which is already known, and reinforces the thesis that places quality education at the intersection of three main axis: the individual, society and nature. Its mission is to respond to a global socio-ecological challenge of unknown magnitude. This requires a profound reorientation of the dominant socio-cultural model and, consequently, it fundamentally questions the anthropological model that supports it. UNESCO proposes an educational approach in line with the The standard model is specified in learning achievements which are adjusted to a top-level typology of competencies for sustainability. Each is made up of a cluster of many other competencies with multiple elements: knowledge, values, skills, attitudes, etc., which are a synergistic effect of their interrelation. UNESCO, in collaboration with other international institutions, is guiding educational systems towards innovation and change within the framework of great socio-political consensus. Perhaps for this reason, it maintains a certain axiological ambiguity in relation to sustainability and thus opts for the term ‘sustainable development’. This allows for different ideological nuances and, consequently, different concretions of the educational model. This flexibility limits the coherence of the training processes which are designed to respond to urgent planetary needs. The standard educational model disseminated by UNESCO largely coincides with that of the OECD. It includes a typology of competencies that are insufficient to face education in the Anthropocene. Nevertheless, its significant gaps could be remedied by incorporating the In the Anthropocene, a quality education cannot ignore either the Today, education, pedagogy, as a transforming social force, follows its course between possibilism and utopia. This is a course which, inevitably, passes through the establishment of a new
The approach adopted in this paper moves within the field of possibilism. We believe that the reformism promoted by international organisations, in the most recent version, SDG4 of the
Pioneering in its response to our serious environmental problems, environmental education cultivates, in its most transformative approach, a critical gaze is characterised as a genuine education for sustainability (Novo, 2009). In its beginnings, under the auspices of UNESCO and UNEP — within the framework of the United Nations International Environmental Education Programme (1975-1995) — it attracted institutionalised international support, until the celebration of the Earth Summit (Rio 92). At this symbolic event, which included a sizeable number of international NGOs, it assumed a highly utopian approach to environmental education, stating that ‘is not neutral but ideological. It is a political act, based on values for social transformation’ (Foro Global 92, 1992, principle 4). As of that date, the model of education for sustainable development that international organisations disseminate today has been built.
Meanwhile, environmental education has been influenced by post-development theoretical approaches — with strong roots in Latin American culture (Mato, 2005; Gudynas, 2014; Gudynas y Acosta, 2011) — which delegitimise the dominant approach with accusations of conceptual incoherence and serious disregard for the knowledge, experiences and concerns of communities. Alternatively, these approaches opt for the term ‘sustainability’ as a core concept. This is a theoretical framework that motivates the need for an alternative agenda, an agenda characterised by degrowth, as in the case of the so-called
Even with the risk of oversimplification, it can be said that the key to this criticism lies in radical questioning of the concept of sustainable development, described as an oxymoron (Demaría
These are genuinely transformative approaches, undoubtedly essential for enriching debate in open societies (democratic societies) as well as in multicultural contexts. However, the radical change that they propose does not, at this time, seem to attract the consensus necessary for an effective and generalised implementation. They fulfil an energising critical function and represent the most radical utopia, perhaps feasible in the long term, of education in the Anthropocene.
The author thanks the funding from the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities through the project
We use the name of
The